TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE DEBATE ON THE ASHBOURNE ACT. THERE are just five speeches in the debate on the extension of the Ashbourne Act which deserve attentive study,—that of the Solicitor-General for Ireland, who described the operation of the Act ; that of Mr. Gladstone, who stated the case against extension ; those of Mr. Goschen and Sir E. Grey, who answered Mr. Glad- stone ; and that of Mr. Dillon, who impugned the security by prophesying that a Nationalist Party would arise based on repudiation, and so raised a separate issue, with which we have dealt elsewhere. Of these speeches, decidedly the weakest was Mr. Gladstone's ; so weak was it, indeed, that when he sat down the battle was virtually over. It was quite certain that no one would have stronger arguments to produce than Mr. Gladstone ; and when it was seen how little substantial objection the Liberal leader had to offer, the discussion, though interesting from the quality of the speakers, became for Parliamentary purposes a useless one. Mr. Gladstone not only did not affect a single vote—cynics say that is true even of the ablest speeches—but he probably did not affect a single mind. He had, in truth, nothing to the purpose to say. He dwelt persistently, for instance, on the idea that the House in voting five millions was committing itself to in- definite expenditure, was " entering into a defile" from which it could only emerge as landlord of all Ireland ; but the answer to that rose instinctively in every man's mind, even before Mr. Goschen had given it a fiat denial. If the expenditure succeeds in producing peace, and is repaid, the country will wish to go on ; and if it does not succeed, or is not repaid, then the House retains its freedom. It would be as sensible to say that if the House lowers the duty on tea, then it must go on lowering it until there is no more a tea-duty. That the probability was in favour of the Government, was not con- tested ; and, indeed, after Mr. Madden's figures, could not be, for he had shown that the failures to pay instalments were almost imperceptible, that the State gained a merchantable security in the shape of tenant-right often worth more than the freehold, and that the Com- missioners had in all cases examined the applications with relentless severity. Indeed, Mr. Gladstone, by an extra- ordinary slip, himself gave up this part of his argument, for he suddenly dilated on the honesty of the Irish tenant, whom he described as " the best rent-payer in the world." Whence, then, shrewdly asked Sir E. Grey, in a speech which, coming from a man of twenty-six, is brimful of promise, came all the huge arrears . about which Mr. Gladstone is so interested ? But the retort, perfect as it was, was almost superfluous ; for if the Irish tenant is the best rent-payer in the world, then the Ashbourne Act is safe, and may be indefinitely extended. Clearly the honest tenant will not be demoralised by the fact that his rent buys his freehold. Again, Mr. Gladstone pressed, with much repetition, the idea that the Act was a landlord's Act, that the initiative rested with the landlords only, and that it ought to rest equally with the tenants. As a matter of fact, so it does, half the applications coming from landlords on their own initiative, and half from land- lords on tenants' pressure.; but the argument, even if literally true, was valueless, as the tenants had only to refuse to buy. To say they are coerced in the present state of Irish affairs, is foolish, for whatever a landlord can do, the one thing he cannot do is to compel anybody, whether tenant or stranger, to buy his land. If he could, the National League, which Mr. Dillon says keeps five thousand farms empty, would be an impotent association. That the tenants, moreover, like the Act, is a datum conceded in stating that it will by-and-by absorb too much money ; and if they like it, where is the sense of resisting it on their behalf ? Mr. Dillon might say, and in effect at the end of his speech did imply, that the Act indisposed the tenantry to seek an end far higher than their own comfort ; but Mr. Gladstone neither said that nor could say it, for he made the settlement of the land question a condition precedent of his own Home-rule measure. Then Mr. Gladstone objected to the time of the extension, saying that he might have supported a continuation Bill and a vote of two millions, just to allow time for full discussion ; but does not that admission reduce • the debate to a triviality ? All opposition in principle is given up, and nothing assailed except the official calculation that five millions will be wanted immediately instead of two. The Executive can surely decide on a difference of that kind, which even the speaker admitted was a very small one. Finally, when Mr. Gladstone at last reached his main contention, the necessity of remitting arrears, he had no argument to produce showing any connection between that proposal and the extension of a loan for purchasingpurposes. He could only argue that arrears have been remitted in the Highlands, where, as Mr. Goschen told him, there are no judicial rents, and where, therefore, rents may be, and doubtless were, far in excess of the fair value of the plots; and then wander away into interminable details, showing that evictions are sometimes cruel. Certainly they are, as they are also sometimes made to look cruel for dramatic purposes; but the cruelty is an odd argument against a Bill, the object of which is, within the area covered by its opera- tions, to make eviction for rent impossible. Nobody can evict a freeholder for rent. Mr. Gladstone says the instalments may not be paid, and then the State will evict ; but that could only happen, on his own theory, in a time of unusual distress. So long as he can pay, the Irish tenant, he says, will pay ; but what is to be done if he cannot pay ? Just what is done every day in levying probate and succession duty,—give the payer a little time in which to borrow the money, or tide over the short period during which he is with- out resources. Of course, it is inconvenient that the State should be landlord, but it is not so inconvenient as it looks, for, as Mr. Goschen observed, as far as popular hatred goes, the State is landlord now. It has to employ its police and soldiers to collect rent for the landlords ; in fact, to carry out its duty to its subjects just as much as if it were owner of the soil. Of course, . if there is a. Parnellite Government in Dublin refusing to collect instalments, and ordering its hundred representatives in Westminster to vote against the Government which asks for them, collection will be disagreeable ; but a Government cannot abandon its remedial measures because of a hype- thetical revolution which it was elected in order to defeat, and which so far has been defeated. The cruelty of evictions is, therefore, no argument against the Ashbourne Act, any more than the fact that the existence of arrears may impede a tenant in applying for a judicial rent. The theory of all who believe in the badness of Irish landlords is that if a tenant is in arrears, he cannot apply to the Court for a reduction, because if he does, the agent will serve notice of eviction for arrears, and plead that he is not a tenant, but only a caretaker. That statement is denied by all representatives of the landlords, who allege that reductions of arrears are constantly conceded ; but let us allow that it is possible, and indicates a blot in the Land Act. Still, the suspension of the Ashbourne Act would be no remedy whatever,—or, rather, would be worse than none, for under the operation of that Act, arrears and rent-paying are ex- tinguished together. In truth, the debate brought out no solid objection to the Act of any kind, and we can only marvel at the strength of the ties of discipline which allowed only four Gladstonians either to vote against or abstain from following the Liberal leader. There is one objection to the Act, but it is the one which naturally the advocate of the down-trodden tenant finds it convenient to overlook. So comfortable is the posi- tion in which the Irish tenant who accepts the Ash- bourne Act finds himself placed, that there is danger lest English and Scotch tenantry should call for its extension -to those neglected Kingdoms. That proposal would involve something like a revolution ; but then, Irishmen would not care, and their English allies cannot use the argument without an admission fatal to their case. The Ashbourne Act is, in fact, the one little bit of success which as yet the two parties have achieved in their legislation for Ireland.
Previous page
